Fine of the Month: August 2006

(David Carpenter)

1. The bishop of Winchester’s fine in 1227

In a follow-up to last month's fine David Carpenter analyses the personal consequences
for Peter des Roches in his struggle with royal government, dominated by his rival, the
justiciar, Hubert de Burgh, to retain the markets and fairs he had established during
the years of minority government after Henry III’s assumption of full regal powers in
January 1227.

⁋1In the fine of the month for July, I drew attention to the numerous fines made by
institutions and individuals in 1227 to secure the king’s confirmation of their charters
now that the last restrictions on his power had been removed, and he was able to issue
charters of his own. The largest of these fines was that made by Peter des Roches, bishop
of Winchester. It amounted to no less than £500 and was offered in return for the
confirmation of a charter of liberties granted by King John, together with the further
confirmation of all the markets and fairs established on episcopal manors since the peace
of November 1217. As Nicholas Vincent rightly observes in his magisterial biography of des
Roches, the size of the fine almost certainly reflects the bishop’s unpopularity with the
government, which was headed, of course, by his enemy, the justiciar Hubert de
Burgh.1 The purpose of this note is to show
how the fine itself ran into trouble and did not secure the bishop all he wanted. It is
undated but, judging from its place on the roll was made at Westminster between 23 and 27
March, a period during which des Roches’s attestation of royal charters shows he was at
court.2 Initially
the fine was for the confirmation of John’s charter and for des Roches to ‘have the
markets and fairs which were conceded to him after the peace’. Subsequently, however, the
fine was altered. Instead of having ‘the markets and fairs which were conceded to him
after the peace’, the king was to ‘confirm to him the markets and fairs which have been
raised in his manors after the peace’. On the face of it, the alteration was in des
Roches’s favour. Under the first version he only gained confirmation of markets and fairs
which the king had already licensed in his minority. Under the second the confirmation
stretched to all the markets and fairs the bishops had established, whether licensed or
not.

⁋2The alteration did not end the debate over the bishop’s fine. In the margin against it is
the note ‘it has not yet been sent’ (nondum missus est.) The
explanation for this comes later in the membrane where we find the heading ‘from here it
is to be sent to the exchequer’ (hinc mittendum est ad scaccarium.)
This indicated that from this point in the roll copies of the fines had to be sent to the
exchequer in a new instalment of the originalia roll, the fines up to that point having
already gone. The exception was the fine of the bishop of Winchester. It had not been sent
to the Exchequer for collection, doubtless because there was still argument over precisely
what the bishop should get in return for it.

⁋3As far as the fine rolls were concerned the argument was soon terminated and in the
bishop’s favour. The third entry after the ‘from here is to be sent to the exchequer’
heading repeated the bishop’s fine in its second altered form. Again there is no date but
the entry comes between letters of 27 and 28 March. This time the fine did reach the
originalia roll and thus duly appeared on the exchequer pipe roll.3 The impression that the bishop had
won, if at some cost, is, however, misleading. If we turn to the record of the actual
charter the bishop obtained, as enrolled on the charter roll of this year, we find that it
is simply a confirmation of the charter of King John. There is no mention of any
additional confirmation of the bishop’s new charters and fairs.4 In the event, therefore des Roches had not gained what he had fined for.
He had obtained neither the confirmation of the markets and fairs he had established nor
even the more limited confirmation of the ones for which he had already obtained licence.

⁋4The government, which doubtless in practice means Hubert de Burgh, had thus give des
Roches a kicking, but now it drew back. Eager to see the back of him, it exacted little of
the £500. Instead, in a settlement prior to des Roches’s departure on crusade later in the
year, the Exchequer set much of the debt off against money owed the bishop by the crown.
Des Roches, however, did not forget and the proof of that is again in the fine rolls, as
Nicholas Vincent has perspicaciously noted. The bishop returned to England in the summer
of 1231 and immediately began the campaign which was soon to bring him to power and de
Burgh to destruction. That October, a writ summarized in the fine rolls instructed the
sheriff of Hampshire to give des Roches seisin of the manor of Titchfield, this for the
foundation of an Augustinian house. The king explained that he was making the concession
‘for the fine of £500 which the bishop made with the king and for which he satisfied the
king at the Exchequer’. As Vincent perceived, this seems a clear reference back to the
fine of 1227, a fine for which des Roches had satisfied the king without receiving due
satisfaction in return.5

⁋5The background to the bishop’s concern in 1227 is clear. During the minority a
considerable number of ministers and magnates had obtained letters close authorizing them
to set up markets and fairs. In 1218 Des Roches himself had thus secured permission for
markets at his manors of Adderbury (Oxfordshire), Wargrave (Berkshire), and at Overton and
Newtown in Hampshire. Next year he added a market and fair at Hindon in Wiltshire. Here,
as at Overton and Newtown, he was setting up a new borough.6 All these grants lacked the
stipulation, introduced generally towards the end of 1220, that the concession was only to
last until the king came of age, but equally they were only made to the bishop himself,
not to the bishop and his successors.7 In
this des Roches was in the same position as all the other beneficiaries of such grants
during the minority, the government thus respecting the restriction on the king making
concessions in perpetuity till he came of age. In February 1227, therefore, the king was
well within his rights when he prohibited the holding of markets and fairs set up since
his first coronation in 1216, whether licensed or not, until the holders obtained special
permission for their continuance.8 Clearly here there was an awareness that some markets and fairs had
been set up without licence, and that this applied to the bishop is suggested, as we have
seen, by the terms of his fine. Conceivably a fair in question was that at Fareham for
which des Roches eventually obtained a charter in 1233.9 Perhaps he had also, without permission, changed the day of his
fair at Witney, something eventually authorized in 1231.10

⁋6Des Roches had, therefore, every reason for seeking formal confirmation from the king for
the markets and fairs he had set up since the start of the reign. Seek it he indeed did.
Obtain it he did not. In the event, all he got was a letter close (in May 1227) to the
sheriff of Berkshire telling him to permit the continuation of the Wargrave market despite
the prohibition.11 How the grievance over the
£500 fine continued to rankle we have seen. The only puzzle is that, during his period of
power between 1232 and 1234, des Roches did not obtain a charter to put matters right. It
was left to his successors to obtain specific charters for Overton and Hindon and a
general charter (in 1284) covering, amongst other things, the markets and fairs in all the
bishop’s manors. Perhaps, until it was too late, des Roches felt he need not bother, a
measure and the confidence and arrogance which was such a marked feature of his
career.12

⁋1For the bishop of Winchester. It has not yet been sent. The bishop of
Winchester gives £500 for having confirmation of a charter of King John that he made
for him concerning liberties contained in the same charter, and so that the king
confirms to him his markets and fairs established in his manors13 after the peace made between King Henry
and Louis, King of France. 23–26 March.

⁋1For the bishop of Winchester. The bishop of Winchester gives £500 for having
confirmation of a charter of King John that he made for him concerning liberties
contained in the same charter, and so that the king confirms to him his markets and
fairs established in his manors after the peace made between King Henry and Louis,
King of France. 27–28 March.

C. Ch. R
1226–57, pp. 29–30; Royal Charter Wirness Lists, i, p. 25
(no.99) for the witnesses; RLC, ii, p. 179b for the letters close of
implementation. It may be noted that the charter is dated to 23 March, whereas the
argument over the fine seems to have taken place between the twenty-third and the
twenty-eighth. However, the entries on the fine rolls are undated and no very precise
reliance can be placed on the dates of charters in this period, so many of them being
issued. Back to context...

RLC, ii, pp. 170, 174, 185. On 21
January the king had proclaimed that anyone who wished to seek a confirmation or charter
for lands, tenements, markets and liberties should come to him: RLC, ii,
pp. 207. Back to context...

9.

CR 1231–34, p.
208; Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs, p. 153. The charter roll for this
year is missing. Back to context...